i'm calling it that because it sounds better than klotzbachcast. but anyway, the colostate numbers are in, and they are wicked. the december numbers don't always end up looking the same by may or august, but they'll have to come down a long way before not seeming harsh.
so anyhow, according to them we'll make it to rafael next year. seventeen named storms, nine hurricanes, five majors. you guys who bet high are with the more official predictions. odd to be below the graycast personally... never happened thus far.
interesting that they're predicting the pro-landfall conditions of the last two years to switch back to the stuff we're more familiar with from previous years. the only hole i can see in that logic is that we spent quite a number of years with the east coast trough snatching most everything away, and that run of luck seemed pretty unlikely.
hard to say what '06 will be look, but the early numbers don't look good. bummer.
HF 0404z06december

Well when I learned, in the process of putting together a prediction for this thread, that their Dec numbers last year couldn't have been more wrong (11 / 6 / 3), after the year we just had, that eroded my confidence in their Dec predictions. I think I'll wait for their May update; at least that prediction was a little closer, even if they subsequently spent the entire season playing catch-up with the actual numbers.

How well has their Dec prediction done in prior years? Has it ever been close?

sometimes. they have past verification stats at the end of their forecast. -HF

I found it this morning in Jeff Masters blog:

"How good are these long-range hurricane forecasts issued in December? Last year, the December forecast called for an average 2005 hurricane season with 11 named storms, six of them becoming hurricanes. Obviously, the forecast was a bust--we had 26 named storms and 14 hurricanes. The updated forecast issued on May 31 of 2005 performed much better--15 named storms were forecast, with eight hurricanes. However, over the past five years (not including the forecast for the 2005 season), the skill of the December hurricane forecasts by the CSU team has been quite good--in four out of five years, the predicted number of named storms was within three of the actual number."

Also he had a really good summary. I'll post it below and if you don't want it in the forum feel free to delete it.

More on the Graycast (more like 'overcast' it's so gloom and doom!); this is from Jeff Master's Wunderground blog this morning, and I found this summary of the factors taken into account in the forecast very helpful (for newbies like me):

"The CSU team uses observations of monthly average atmospheric winds and pressures over six specific regions of the globe taken this Fall to determine whether favorable or unfavorable conditions will exist for the 2006 hurricane season. All six of these "predictors" are favorable for an active 2006 hurricane season. A condensed summary:

"1) El Niņo, which acts to suppress Atlantic hurricane activity, is not expected to be active during the 2006 hurricane season. It is more likely that neutral or even La Niņa conditions will develop, which are favorable for Atlantic hurricane activity.

"2) The stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), an oscillation in the stratosphere that creates alternating westerly and easterly winds there, is expected to be in it west phase during the hurricane season of 2006. The west phase of the QBO has been shown to provide favorable conditions for development of tropical cyclones in the deep tropics.

"3) The observed pressure and wind patterns over the North Atlantic will allow stronger than normal southerly winds to keep sea surface temperatures over the entire North Atlantic well above normal during 2006. Sea surface temperatures during 2005 were the highest measured since at least 1950, and helped fuel 2005's record-breaking intense hurricanes. Sea surface temperatures during the 2006 hurricane season may be just as warm.

"4) Perhaps most importantly, observed wind and pressure patterns this Fall indicate that upper-level winds in the upper atmosphere (200 mb) will blow from the east during the hurricane season of 2006, like they did during 2005. This results in low wind shear over hurricane formation regions of the tropical Atlantic. Low wind shear is the key ingredient needed for tropical storm formation and intensification.

Jeff Masters"

margie, for large excerpts like this you should just put a link... unless you have a bunch of specific comments related to the text. -HF

Discouraging but not surprising. Going to 17 right from the gitgo.
In the abstract they state that NTC activity is predicted to be 195% of the long period average. And all 6 predictors were positive for increased activity.
I wish they had gone more into the steering mechanics/scenarios/predictions. Perhaps that isnt that reliable this far out. I hope they are right about "the probability of seeing another two consecutive hurricane seasons like 2004-2005 is very low".
Their landfall probabilities at http://www.e-transit.org/hurricane/welcome.html are helpful.

Uh-oh. One thing I didn't think about was hybrid storms in Jan, Feb timeframe, and it suddenly seems as if this Nov/Dec pattern could continue right into 2006, although it sounds like something that isn't very common. When I was thinking about a prediction for the 2006 season, I was thinking more along the lines of the traditional start of the season, not January. If we have a number of off-season named storms in early 2006, that is the one thing that would make me update my numbers in May. But who would think I'd even be considering whether a tropical storm would form before my birthday (Jan 30th)?

As a relative newcomer to this whole debate, I wonder if someone can help me with a question. Has anyone put any serious thought into deciding which of the professional, or semi-professional, forecasters is generally the most reliable/accurate? I see a huge amount of discussion and prediction, but I can't find anywhere or anyone that tries to bring together all the science or all the forecasts into a consensus theory or a definitive view.

Or would this be to attempt the impossible...?

different groups win out from year to year. some years like last nobody really gets it right. the forecast schemes are different from group to group, so that's sort of an apples/oranges issue. not everybody is doing a raw storm number forecast either, such as the coastal impact forecasts bastardi does. usually when you read the post-season reports things referred to will not have been predicted by anybody (i.e. the central pacific ridge/upstream west u.s. trough pattern that persisted 2004-2005). so no, there isn't really a consensus view, outside of maybe everybody predicting above or below average activity. -HF

Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 61401

Rate this topic

Jump to

Note: This is NOT an official page. It is run by weather hobbyists and should not be used as a replacement for official sources.
CFHC's main servers are currently located at Hostdime.com in Orlando, FL.
Image Server Network thanks to Mike Potts and Amazon Web Services. If you have static file hosting space that allows dns aliasing contact us to help out! Some Maps Provided by:
Great thanks to all who donated and everyone who uses the site as well.
Site designed for 800x600+ resolution
When in doubt, take the word of the National Hurricane Center